The Times: Monkeys Have A Sense Of Morality

[Mark]

Monkeys have a sense of morality, say scientists
Jonathan Leake, Science Editor
MONKEYS and apes have a sense of morality and the rudimentary ability to tell right from wrong, according to new research.

In a series of studies scientists have found that monkeys and apes can make judgments about fairness, offer altruistic help and empathise when a fellow animal is ill or in difficulties. They even appear to have consciences and the ability to remember obligations.

The research implies that morality is not a uniquely human quality and suggests it arose through evolution. That could mean the strength of our consciences is partly determined by our genes.

Such findings are likely to antagonise fundamentalist religious groups. Some believe the ability to form moral judgments is a God-given quality that sets humans apart.

The scientists say, however, that the evidence is clear. “I am not arguing that non-human primates are moral beings but there is enough evidence for the following of social rules to agree that some of the stepping stones towards human morality can be found in other animals,” said Frans de Waal, professor of psychology at Emory University in Georgia in the United States.

[Read The Entire Article Here]

This is really cool, I've even known atheists take a stand against this kind of idea (though why mystifies me).

Kyu

I thought it was already fairly well understood that "morality" is partly social and partly genetic in origin, in the latter case having presumably been selected for its utility in a social species. So it would hardly seem surprising that monkeys have monkey morality. I would think that dogs also would have at least an analogue of morality, in the sense of a learned or genetic predisposition toward certain types of socially useful behavior.

I believe that Darwin theorized that there is group selection, in which the group deselects socially intolerable individuals and thus weakens or eliminates their chance of contributing to the gene pool. My understanding is that this wasn't credited very much at first, but that it's becoming a more widely accepted idea.

But I wonder about this particular article since it appears to suggest that there exists an objective standard of right and wrong. What is right and what is wrong in this entirely determined by the group, it would seem. The article would be better written if it said that certain primates appear to have a normative sense that accords with that of many human beings.